That would be a lot of work for what amounts to not much. Thing is, if you want to implement population than you'd have to rework manpower, dev, taxation, goods produced, all of the associated events and maybe some other things that I can't think of right now. Population was a thing back in EU 3 and it pretty much only served to tell you how much tax you got from your provinces. I agree wholeheartedly with you that it needs a change, but I don't think if a straight up boost is the right way to do it.Ĭoming back to OP's question, I doubt it. I didn't bring up the case of MP campaigns to discard your argument by saying that you can get a large army in this game, but rather to show that the sheer concept of manpower in EU4 is fundamentally flawed. This is what an 'idea' in EU4 is - an abstract idea of a system or law, that your nation uses to get stronger/better. Some used a simple system of 'each village/family has to provide X troops to their liege', some went with relying more heavily on mercenaries, rather than own population, some relied more on getting troops from the aristocracy, whereas eventually some nations managed to straight up introduce common conscription for all/most people of X age, and each of these systems was able to provide a different number of people(or a different proportion of the population) to the military. Throughout history there was a variety of systems used by various countries to raise troops. Manpower doesn't represent your population, but the portion of it that your country is able to field as troops. I'm not sure if I agree with your notion that manpower shouldn't be connected with ideas. If you ever tried to boost any nation's ability to field large armies(not that I disagree with you, to make that clear)

WhY cAn I nOT bEaT Ai OtTos tHeY hAvE 1mLN trOoOps WWTF UNREALISTIC PLS NERF PARADOX I think that involving population in the game might actually aid game balance, by allowing Regions like China and India to better resist European occupation (as they were able to do IRL during the time frame of this game). Even Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire (ruling India, more than a millennia before the beginning of the game) had manpower numbering in the hundreds of thousands for the Kalinga War.Īm I the only one bothered by population not being represented in manpower? Late game Italy can have the same manpower as a late game Mughals. It would more accurately reflect the sheer bodies that the Mughals could throw at wars such as those during the reign of Aurangzeb or Akbar. Perhaps their manpower recovery could be higher? This way we wouldn't need to give Mughals over 1M manpower, but instead have them recover their manpower at a significantly higher rate. I understand that giving these empires historical amounts of manpower would be horrible for game balance, but the superior size of their respective populations should be demonstrated in some way. even 1% of this would be more than 1 million men.Īm I to believe the Great Mughals can only muster 200k fighting men? Same goes for Ming, France, and Russia.

During the same period this game covers, the Mughal Empire had a population of 100M-150M +. I always find it odd when I form Mughals and unite the entire subcontinent, yet only have 200k manpower. Can population somehow be worked into this game without destroying certain mechanics/ game balance?

Eu4 manpower ridiculously high